In person it’s very noticable. If you play games in the dark a lot it can be “night and day” difference going from LCD to OLED imo.
The best description I can give it is the colors are just so much more punchy and strong as well as the light bleed being completely gone. 90 Hz is just icing on the cake when navigating menus.
Thanks for the explanation. Was not aware it worked that way.
I was curious myself, so I asked ChatGPT (3.5 Turbo) LMAO. I genuinely have no idea myself so I was just curious.
If a company owns a certain percentage in shares in a publicly traded company, is there a percentage where that owning company/individual has more ownership than the company itself? For example, if Company A has 100 shares and Company B owns 51 of those shares and Company A has 49 of those shares, doesn’t that mean Company B owns Company A?
In a typical scenario, the ownership of a company is determined by the percentage of outstanding shares owned by an individual or another company. However, owning a majority of shares does not necessarily mean that one company “owns” another in the sense of controlling its operations or decision-making.
In your example, if Company B owns 51 out of 100 shares of Company A, it means that Company B has a majority stake in Company A. Having a majority stake often gives a shareholder significant influence because they have the power to make certain decisions, such as electing the board of directors. Shareholders with a majority stake can potentially control corporate decisions put to a vote.
However, there are certain decisions that may require a higher percentage of approval, such as amending the company’s bylaws. Additionally, even if Company B has a majority of shares, it does not necessarily mean it has full control over Company A if other shareholders band together to oppose its proposals.
The idea of “ownership” in this context is more about control and influence rather than a direct operational ownership. It’s also important to note that ownership and control structures can vary based on the type of shares (voting vs. non-voting) and the specific corporate governance rules in place.
So in a hypothetical example of Company B owning 49 shares and Company A owning 51 shares of Company A, Company B is not necessarily beholden to the decisions that Company A wants to make? For example, if Company A’s board of directors decides to lay off it’s CEO, Company B doesn’t necessarily have to be notified that it happened, they can just do it, correct?
Yes, that’s correct. In the scenario where Company A owns 51 shares and Company B owns 49 shares of Company A, Company A would have the majority stake and, therefore, more influence in making decisions. The board of directors and major corporate decisions, such as hiring or firing the CEO, would typically be within the purview of Company A.
Company B, holding a minority stake, would have less influence on decision-making. Depending on the corporate governance structure and voting rights associated with the shares, Company B might not have the ability to block certain decisions or dictate major corporate actions. In many cases, minority shareholders have limited control over the day-to-day operations and strategic decisions of a company…(continued rambling)
An important note to your last one is for some of us we don’t get an option. Work does everything with Office 365? Welp, guess you gotta use Microsoft products now 🤷
Yes but Apple has convinced a large swath of them that they must have an iPhone to be able to have any conversation with friends simply due to the conveniences of iMessage.
They also went out of their way to make SMS conversations harder to read the text by making the green just annoying enough of a color that it actually makes it harder. There are other things but that’s the gist.